Yahweh 301,302 or Trinity 301,302

[Johan]

John 4:24 (KJV): God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

John 4:24
24.] πνεῦμα ὁ θεός was the great Truth of Judaism, whereby the Jews were distinguished from the idolatrous people around them. And the Samaritans held even more strongly than the Jews the pure monotheistic view. Traces of this, remarks Lücke (from Gesenius), i. 599 note, are found in the alterations made by them in their Pentateuch, long before the time of this history. This may perhaps be partly the reason why our Lord, as Bengel remarks, “Discipulis non tradidit sublimiora,” than to this Samaritan woman.
God being pure spirit (perhaps better not ‘a Spirit,’ since it is His Essence, not His Personality, which is here spoken of), cannot dwell in particular spots or temples (see Act_7:48; Act_17:24-25); cannot require, nor be pleased with, earthly material offerings nor ceremonies, as such: on the other hand, is only to be approached in that part of our being, which is spirit,—and even there, inasmuch as He is pure and holy, with no by-ends nor hypocritical regards, but in truth and earnestness.

But here comes in the deeper sense alluded to above. How is the spirit of man to be brought into communion with God? “In templo vis orare; in te ora. Sed prius esto templum Dei.” Aug[65] (Stier, iv. 137, edn. 2.) And how is this to be? Man cannot make himself the temple of God. So that here comes in the gift of God, with which the discourse began,—the gift of the Holy Spirit, which Christ should give to them that believe on Him: thus we have ‘praying ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ,’ Jud_1:20.

So beautifully does the expression ὁ πατήρ here bring with it the new birth by the Spirit,—and for us, the readers of the Gospel, does the discourse of ch. 3 reflect light on this. And so wonderfully do these words form the conclusion to the great subject of these first chapters: ‘GOD IS BECOME ONE FLESH WITH US, THAT WE MIGHT BECOME ONE SPIRIT WITH HIM.’
Alford.
In a false worship we may detect three faults.

(i) A false worship is a selective worship. It chooses what it wishes to know about God and omits the rest. The Samaritans took as much of scripture as they wished and paid no attention to the rest. One of the most dangerous things in the world is a one-sided religion. It is very easy for a man to accept and hold such parts of God’s truth as suit him and to disregard the remainder. We have seen, for instance, how certain thinkers and churchmen and politicians justify apartheid and racial segregation by appeal to certain parts of scripture, while they conveniently forget the far greater parts which forbid it.

A minister in a great city organized a petition to help a man who had been condemned for a certain crime. It seemed to him that this was a case where Christian mercy ought to operate. His telephone bell rang, and a woman’s voice said to him: "I am astonished that you, a minister, should be lending your weight to this petition for mercy." "Why should you be surprised?" he asked. The voice said: "I suppose you know your Bible ... .. I hope so," he said. "Then," said the voice, "are you not aware that the Bible says, ’An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’?" Here was a woman who took the part of the Bible which suited her argument and forgot the great merciful teaching of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount.

We would do well to remember that, although no man will ever grasp the whole orb of truth, it is total truth that we should aim at, not the snatching at fragments which happen to suit ourselves and our own position.

(ii) A false worship is an ignorant worship. Worship ought to be the approach to God of the whole man. A man has a mind and he has a duty to exercise it. Religion may begin with an emotional response; but the time comes when that emotional response has to be thought out. E. F. Scott said that religion is far more than merely the strenuous exercise of the intellect, but that nonetheless a very great part of religious failure is due to nothing other than intellectual sloth. To fail to think things out is in itself a sin. In the last analysis, religion is never safe until a man can tell, not only what he believes, but why he believes it. Religion is hope, but it is hope with reason behind it (1Pe_3:15).

(iii) A false worship is a superstitious worship. It is a worship given, not out of a sense of need nor out of any real desire, but basically because a man feels that it might be dangerous not to give it. Many a person will refuse to walk beneath a ladder; many a person will have a pleased feeling when a black cat crosses his path; many a person will pick up a pin with the idea that good luck will follow; many a person will have an uncomfortable feeling when he is one of thirteen sitting at a table. He does not believe in these superstitions, but he has the feeling that there might be something in them and he had better play safe. There are many people whose religion is founded on a kind of vague fear of what might happen if they leave God out of the reckoning. But real religion is founded not on fear but on the love of God and gratitude for what God has done. Too much religion is a kind of superstitious ritual to avert the possible wrath of the unpredictable gods.
Jesus pointed to the true worship. God, he said, is spirit. Immediately a man grasps that, a new flood-light breaks over him. If God is spirit, God is not confined to things; and therefore idol worship is not only an irrelevancy, it is an insult to the very nature of God. If God is spirit, God is not confined to places; and therefore to limit the worship of God to Jerusalem or to any other spot is to set a limit to that which by its nature overpasses all limits.

If God is spirit, a man’s gifts to God must be gifts of the spirit. Animal sacrifices and all man-made things become inadequate.
DSB.

 

[Eleanor]

Greetings again Eleanor,
Yes, Jesus after his resurrection was seen in a material body of flesh and bone. There may have been other ways of not being properly recognised, or disappearing from sight. If Jesus in his glorified body could withhold his glory, he could also turn off the visible light spectrum from his body. My own personal opinion is that his changed body may have been a substantial transformation, even though it appeared much the same. When Jesus revealed his glory, then this could have been the power of God added, or it could be the actual material of his changed body. Our normal chemicals in our body do not emit radiation in the form of intense light.

I am not sure what is "spirit" in John 4:24. Is this now similar to
Psalm 110:1 presents the One God, Yahweh, God the Father sitting upon His Throne in heaven and Jesus after his exaltation sitting at God's right hand. Is God the Father an invisible spirit with no physical substance, while Jesus sitting at his hand is either an invisible spirit also, or does he retain his flesh and bones resurrected (glorified?) body?

I suspect his spirit is able to materialize into an immortal, glorified body, as well as de-materialize.

The KJV is slightly different to modern translations
John 4:24 (KJV): God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
John 4:24 (RSV): God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”
John 4:24 (NIV84): God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.”
John 4:24 (NASB95): “God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”
John 4:24 (ESV): God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”
And what does "worship in spirit and truth" really mean. Is it similar to the following? :

By the Holy Spirit, and according to the Holy Spirit.

Joshua 24:14 (KJV): 14 Now therefore fear the LORD, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the LORD.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Eleanor and Red Baker,

I was undecided where to go next in this thread. I could have chosen another reference or two from your “Trinity” lists. There was a brief mention in another post about John 17:5, and this reference also immediately prompted me to think of John 17:3, two verses earlier. Perhaps I will choose a few more verses later on in the week.

I did a bit of a browse and I came across the following from Post #132 (also endorsed by @Red Baker) which is another repeat of your request to answer ALL your statements and references at once.

What do you find regarding your failure to address any of the Scriptures I presented all those times?
I find your avoidance to be demonstration that you cannot overcome the Biblical testimony disagreeing with your assertion.
And that is where you currently remain.

Your Post #132 above is in direct response to my summation in Post #125 of how often you have demanded this, and this has been despite my continued statement that I would deal with a few references at a time, and gradually whittle away at this subject, both positively and negatively.

I also came across the following statement from Post #114, and I was disappointed that we have not progressed with some agreement here, despite all that I have stated concerning the Yahweh Name.

Also, we reject as pure heresy those who reject the deity of the Son of God as being the I AM THAT I AM.

Two weeks ago I went to a very large second hand book sale and they had tables with different subjects and I went to the Theology table and was able to purchase three reference books. One of the books caught my attention, not only because of the title, but also because of the Editor:
“The Literary Guide to the Bible”, Edited by Robert Alter and Frank Kermode.

I had encountered Robert Alter a few years back when it was announced that his complete three volume translation and commentary on the Old Testament was now available. I considered it out of my price range and I bought his earlier book “The Book of Psalms, A Translation with Commentary”, 2007.

I decided to read the section in The Literary Guide on the Psalms and to my surprise Robert Alter was not only one of the Editors, he also wrote this particular section on the Psalms, pages 244-262. I was reminded of you when I read Note 2 on page 261: “All translations in this essay are my own because the KJV does not sufficiently represent the formal design of the poetry”.

I then decided to look up another one of his books “The Five Books of Moses, A Translation with Commentary” to see how he translated Exodus 3:14 and I was pleasantly surprised at his translation, but also how he presented the Name, with both the Hebrew and the English and he uses hyphens to indicate that it is One Name, not just a sentence:

Exodus 3:11-15 (Robert Alter): 11 And Moses said to God, “Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh and that I should bring out the Israelites from Egypt?” 12 And He said, “For I will be with you. And this is the sign for you that I Myself have sent you. When you bring the people out from Egypt, you shall worship God on this mountain.”13 And Moses said to God, “Look, when I come to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they say to me, ‘What is his name?’, what shall I say to them?” 14 And God said unto Moses, “ ’Ehyeh-’Asher-’Ehyeh, I-Will-Be-Who-I-Will-Be.” And He said, “Thus shall you say to the Israelites, ‘’Ehyeh has sent me unto you.’” 15 And God said further to Moses, “Thus shall you say to the Israelites: ‘The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, sent me to you. That is my name forever and thus am I invoked in all ages.’

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Eleanor]

Greetings again Eleanor and Red Baker,
I was undecided where to go next in this thread. I could have chosen another reference or two from your “Trinity” lists. There was a brief mention in another post about John 17:5, and this reference also immediately prompted me to think of John 17:3, two verses earlier. Perhaps I will choose a few more verses later on in the week.
I did a bit of a browse and I came across the following from Post #132 (also endorsed by @Red Baker) which is another repeat of your request to answer ALL your statements and references at once.
Your Post #132 above is in direct response to my summation in Post #125 of how often you have demanded this, and this has been despite my continued statement that I would deal with a few references at a time, and gradually whittle away at this subject, both positively and negatively.
I also came across the following statement from Post #114, and I was disappointed that we have not progressed with some agreement here, despite all that I have stated concerning the Yahweh Name.
Two weeks ago I went to a very large second hand book sale and they had tables with different subjects and I went to the Theology table and was able to purchase three reference books. One of the books caught my attention, not only because of the title, but also because of the Editor:
“The Literary Guide to the Bible”, Edited by Robert Alter and Frank Kermode.

I had encountered Robert Alter a few years back when it was announced that his complete three volume translation and commentary on the Old Testament was now available. I considered it out of my price range and I bought his earlier book “The Book of Psalms, A Translation with Commentary”, 2007.
I decided to read the section in The Literary Guide on the Psalms and to my surprise Robert Alter was not only one of the Editors, he also wrote this particular section on the Psalms, pages 244-262. I was reminded of you when I read Note 2 on page 261: “All translations in this essay are my own because the KJV does not sufficiently represent the formal design of the poetry”.

I don't use the KJV.

I then decided to look up another one of his books “The Five Books of Moses, A Translation with Commentary” to see how he translated Exodus 3:14 and I was pleasantly surprised at his translation, but also how he presented the Name, with both the Hebrew and the English and he uses hyphens to indicate that it is One Name, not just a sentence:

Exodus 3:11-15 (Robert Alter): 11 And Moses said to God, “Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh and that I should bring out the Israelites from Egypt?” 12 And He said, “For I will be with you. And this is the sign for you that I Myself have sent you. When you bring the people out from Egypt, you shall worship God on this mountain.”13 And Moses said to God, “Look, when I come to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they say to me, ‘What is his name?’, what shall I say to them?” 14 And God said unto Moses, “ ’Ehyeh-’Asher-’Ehyeh, I-Will-Be-Who-I-Will-Be.” And He said, “Thus shall you say to the Israelites, ‘’Ehyeh has sent me unto you.’” 15 And God said further to Moses, “Thus shall you say to the Israelites: ‘The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, sent me to you. That is my name forever and thus am I invoked in all ages.’

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Eleanor,

I don't use the KJV.

That's fine. I use the KJV but also refer to many other translations. It appears that @Red Baker is in a KJVO fellowship judging by at least one of the talks given by a Senior Pastor that Red Baker referenced concerning Psalm 110. I should imagine that we both would be labeled as heretics if we visited their meeting.

Fortunately, or rather in the Divine Providence, us heretics are not normally stoned, tortured or burnt at the stake these days like Tyndale who stood up against the established Church in his day, including the Church of England who produced the biased Trinitarian KJV. Also Tyndale translated "ekklesia" in Revealtion 2 and 3 as Congregation, not Church and this upset both the RCC and CofE. I consider that Red Baker's insistence on the veracity of 1 John 5:7 and "I AM THAT I AM" in Exodus 3:14 is partially or mainly based upon his KJVO view.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Red Baker]

Greetings again Eleanor,

That's fine. I use the KJV but also refer to many other translations. It appears that @Red Baker is in a KJVO fellowship judging by at least one of the talks given by a Senior Pastor that Red Baker referenced concerning Psalm 110. I should imagine that we both would be labeled as heretics if we visited their meeting.

Fortunately, or rather in the Divine Providence, us heretics are not normally stoned, tortured or burnt at the stake these days like Tyndale who stood up against the established Church in his day, including the Church of England who produced the biased Trinitarian KJV. Also Tyndale translated "ekklesia" in Revealtion 2 and 3 as Congregation, not Church and this upset both the RCC and CofE. I consider that Red Baker's insistence on the veracity of 1 John 5:7 and "I AM THAT I AM" in Exodus 3:14 is partially or mainly based upon his KJVO view.

Kind regards
Trevor

Trevor, I do not label men heretics who use other translations, though I would not put much faith in their understanding of the scriptures since they cannot at least trust God to preserve His word just as he promised to do.

Also, I do not use the word "pastor" and certainly do not believe in a single "pastor over a single" congregation. Pastoring is a work an Elder does, it is not an office~bishop is the office that an elder ( older men ) are in charge of~generally, more than one base on size of course.

That being said~I left organized religion years ago, the first time in the late seventies, the last time, around 2010, never to return! The man of sin has now taken over the churches in this world. Daniel 7-12; Matthew 24; Mark 13; Luke 21; 2nd Thess. 2; 1st John 2:18; and Revelation 7; 11; 13; and 17.

The man of sin, or, man of sin~has taken over and are using their own bibles, anyone you desire is okay with them! I refuse to judge anyone's salvation from sin and condemnation, but will judge their understanding of what they call truth.

 

[Mr GLee]

Trevor, You are correct in that one quote~but if your read all of what I posted I made it very clear the Word of John 1:1 is the first, second and third person of the Godhead~This ONE God is clearly manifest to us as three~ "only" according to the work of redemption for God's elect.

God cannot die, so he conceived a Son who was a man, to be the surety of God's elect. Jesus was the Son of God, by being begotten by him~which means he is equal to God, the Pharisees understood what being the Son of God meant.~John 10. Do you? No pun intended Trevor.

I'll go back and read your post now, just got back

I do not like to repeat exactly what I believe in every post, but all of them collectively will show what I believe and teach.

The dynamic dual

Two is the number assigned to indicate God has spoke. God not seen using form.

The law . .(1) let there be . . and (2) it was good.

Three is used to create a female deity as a queen of heaven Passed on from the Old Testament to the new .

Begotten by him means created by Him. God is not a man.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Red Baker,

I do not label men heretics who use other translations, though I would not put much faith in their understanding of the scriptures since they cannot at least trust God to preserve His word just as he promised to do.

Perhaps I was being a bit harsh, but you do like labeling people as heretics, or their understanding as heresy. Yes, God has preserved His Word, but the KJV is not a fully inspired translation. I have mentioned this before, I read a portion from an Interlinear RV/KJV Bible in the morning and I am very satisfied that the RV has corrected and/or improved many words and phrases that appear in the KJV, and I especially consider the OT of the RV is better than the NT portion.

I enjoyed reading the following article from one of our Magazines, The Christadelphian 1938:
A Reviser on the Revised Version
THE Revised Version of the Bible has now been before the world for between fifty and sixty years. The New Testament was issued in 1881, and the Old Testament in 1885. The Revised Version has never supplanted the Authorized Version of 1611, and it does not appear that it ever will. Some reasons for this are to be found in the subjoined report of the death of one of the most distinguished of the Revisers, namely Christian D. Ginsburg, LL.D. (born 1831, died 1914). The matter here reproduced is from Public Opinion, March 13th, 1914, and is under the title of:

A Great Translator
The Jew who became a Reviser of the English Bible—A Collector of Bibles—His Comments on the Revised Version.
Dr. Christian David Ginsburg, a distinguished Biblical scholar, and one of the most learned and most indefatigable of modern Hebraists, is dead.

“Born at Warsaw on Christmas Day, 1831, he was educated in the Rabbinic College in that city, but became a Christian in 1846. He came to England, and was for a time connected with the Liverpool branch of the London Society for Promoting Christianity among the Jews; but as time went on he devoted himself more and more exclusively to literary work,” says the Times.

“He was one of the original members of the Committee appointed by Convocation in 1870 to undertake the revision of the Old Testament. He also contributed many articles to various Bible dictionaries and encyclopædias published in recent years. Dr. Ginsburg collected old Bibles in various languages. He was the possessor of a complete series of old German printed Bibles, which has been acquired by the British and Foreign Bible Society, and is now to be seen at the society’s house in Queen Victoria Street.”

Last of the Revisers
In the course of an interview with a representative of the Morning Post some time ago, Dr. Ginsburg said:
“I am the last survivor but one of the translators who were appointed by the Convocation of 1881 to revise the translation of the Old Testament. My one remaining colleague is Dr. William Aldis Wright. . . . With regard to the Revised Version of thirty years ago, it is important to distinguish between the Old and the New Testaments, which were prepared by a different set of translators.

“As regards the Old Testament, with which alone I had to deal, the most scrupulous care was taken not to alter anything unnecessarily. Respect for the text on which the mind of the nation had been nurtured for so many generations was our guiding principle.

“It was otherwise with the New Testament, and it is that part of the work which alone in my opinion justifies the strictures of those who say that unnecessary alterations of a trifling character were introduced.

Too Much of the Schoolmaster
“The translators of the New Testament performed their work too much in the spirit of the schoolmaster. For instance, they insisted that a particular Greek phrase should be rendered by one and the same phrase in the translation throughout. Sentences where the meaning of the original was accurately conveyed were altered for no other reason than that that principle might be carried out.

“My colleagues and I pointed out to the revisers that their function consisted solely in the elimination of errors, but on this point we could not persuade them. It was a pity, especially as the Revised New Testament appeared before the Revised Old Testament, and the public were thus prejudiced against the entire work.

“anyone who thinks that the work of revision had the effect of spoiling the Old Testament had only to read that portion of the Revised Version for himself. Nowhere is the rhythm and beauty of the old translation spoiled.

“The English Bible,” Dr. Ginsburg went on, “is undoubtedly the most important work that has ever issued from the press in this country. Its influence on men’s minds and on our literature has been tremendous. At the same time it is quite possible to exaggerate the merits of King James’s translators. Undoubtedly they were scholars. The Hebrew language was well understood by those who made a special study of it in the seventeenth century. The basis of their text was the great Hebrew Bible, which was edited by Jacob ben Chajin, and published in 1524–25 by Bomberg, a German savant who established a printing press in Venice. That is also the foundation of all subsequent Hebrew editions, including my own. . . .

“With regard to the translators of the Authorised Version, of course they had not the same materials that are within reach of the modern editors, and, moreover, their standard of accuracy was not so high as is that of scholars of the present day, for you must remember that in the seventeenth century the science of philology could not be said to exist.

“But it is as regards the English of the Bible, which is so much admired by competent judges, that we owe far less to the authors of the Authorised Version than is generally supposed. Their language is not the language of the literature of their day, but that of a somewhat earlier date.

What We Owe to Tyndale and Coverdale
“The fact is that while they undoubtedly went to the original Hebrew, as I have said, they really corrected earlier English versions. The majestic English of the Authorised Version is really that of earlier workers in the same field. We really owe our English Bible in all its essentials to Tyndale and Coverdale. Tyndale’s Bible, as completed by Matthew, appeared more than 70 years before King James’s version. Another version which was extremely popular, and which was in all important respects very similar to the Authorised Version, was published in 1560 by English refugees in Geneva, and is therefore called the Geneva Bible. . . .

“Still, after making all allowances, the Authorised Version is undoubtedly one of the most interesting books in the world.”

The Editor of our Magazine then comments:
We agree with Dr. Ginsburg in his hearty appreciation of the Revision of the Old Testament. A visualised confirmation of the justness of his judgment on the revisions respectively of the New and Old Testaments, is to be obtained by the simple inspection of the pages of the two in The Interlinear Bible of the Cambridge University Press.

Whereas in the Old Testament the two-line small type indications of the variations between the A.V. and R.V. are comparatively few; in the New Testament they are much too plentiful; and, as Ginsburg truly remarks, “too much in the spirit of the schoolmaster,” being often irritatingly unnecessary.

We are very grateful for many things in the Revised Version; but for some things we are by no means so, but very much the reverse. Possibly there may be opportunity of showing some reasons why we are compelled thus to differentiate between the helps and hindrances.

Also, I do not use the word "pastor" and certainly do not believe in a single "pastor over a single" congregation. Pastoring is a work an Elder does, it is not an office~bishop is the office that an elder ( older men ) are in charge of~generally, more than one base on size of course.

I was referring to the more senior speaker, who gave two of the three talks on Psalm 110.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Mr GLee]

Colossians 2:9
For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form.

1. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains: the nature or state of being God (12.13, theotēs, page 140, J. P. Louw and Eugene Nida).
2. Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: the state of being God (theotēs, page 288).

Yes God the fullness of deity. Deity has no form as invisible God . The Spirit of our Holy father dwells in all sons of God (Christians)

Not the fullness of deity is body form . .Invisible God is not a man as us .

 

[Fred]

Yes God the fullness of deity. Deity has no form as invisible God . The Spirit of our Holy father dwells in all sons of God (Christians)

Not the fullness of deity is body form . .Invisible God is not a man as us .

The fullness of Deity = Jesus is God.
Dwells in bodily form = Jesus is a man.

 

[CherubRam]

Colossians 2:9
For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form.

1. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains: the nature or state of being God (12.13, theotēs, page 140, J. P. Louw and Eugene Nida).
2. Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: the state of being God (theotēs, page 288).

Where the bible says they are "ONE" is is speaking of unity. We are also called to be "ONE" with the Father. The "Spirit" of God was in Yahshua, spiritually speaking.

 

[Fred]

Where the bible says they are "ONE" is is speaking of unity. We are also called to be "ONE" with the Father. The "Spirit" of God was in Yahshua, spiritually speaking.

You can play make believe with how the words of the Bible are properly defined all you want,
The much more serious student of the Bible will know not to engage in such a catastrophic approach to Scripture.

 

[CherubRam]

You can play make believe with how the words of the Bible are properly defined all you want,
The much more serious student of the Bible will know not to engage in such a catastrophic approach to Scripture.

John 17:11
I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are one.

John 17:21
that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

John 17:22
I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one—

 

[Fred]

John 17:11
I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are one.

John 17:21
that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

John 17:22
I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one—

Great, but since you don't accept how the words of the Bible are properly defined then the words you quoted above can also fall into the same category in your thinking.

 

[CherubRam]

Great, but since you don't accept how the words of the Bible are properly defined then the words you quoted above can also fall into the same category in your thinking.

Logic is not your forte.

 

[Fred]

Logic is not your forte.

A mirror is what you lack.

 

[Runningman]

Greetings Red Baker, Eleanor and others,

This thread is not about two different Theological University Courses with two subjects each in the Third Year. It was prompted by two posts #301 and #302 in another sub-forum. These were extensive Lists in support of the Trinity and one participant @Red Baker more or less invited me to discuss my understanding of this subject in general, while the other participant @Eleanor specifically suggested that I should answer her Post #302.




What I suggest is that I will quote one reference (and any relevant comment) from Post #301 by @Red Baker and one reference (and any relevant comment) from #302 by @Eleanor. I will attempt to discuss the meaning of these references. I also would like to add a few references or themes of my own, possibly with a brief explanation for each of the references. The thread is then open for Red Baker and Eleanor to respond if they want to, and also others can be involved. I would prefer that we stick with the verses quoted each time, rather than ending up with a large quantity of references at once.


I am surprised that you rely on this reference as it is considered spurious by many scholars including many Trinitarian scholars. Most modern translations exclude 1 John 5:7 and some do not even mention the fact that this has been excluded. The following comments by Barnes could be sufficient to recommend that you do not rely upon this passage:
Barnes’ Notes on the NT
"For there are three that bear record in heaven ... - There are three that "witness," or that "bear witness" - the same Greek word which, in1 John 5:8, is rendered "bear witness" - μαρτυροῦντες marturountes. There is no passage of the New Testament which has given rise to so much discussion in regard to its genuineness as this. The supposed importance of the verse in its bearing on the doctrine of the Trinity has contributed to this, and has given to the discussion a degree of consequence which has pertained to the examination of the genuineness of no other passage of the New Testament. On the one hand, the clear testimony which it seems to bear to the doctrine of the Trinity, has made that portion of the Christian church which holds the doctrine reluctant in the highest degree to abandon it; and on the other hand, the same clearness of the testimony to that doctrine, has made those who deny it not less reluctant to admit the genuineness of the passage.

It is not consistent with the design of these notes to go into a full investigation of a question of this sort. And all that can be done is to state, in a brief way, the "results" which have been reached, in an examination of the question. Those who are disposed to pursue the investigation further, can find all that is to be said in the works referred to at the bottom of the page. The portion of the passage, in 1 John 5:7-8, whose genuineness is disputed, is included in brackets in the following quotation, as it stands in the common editions of the New Testament: "For there are three that bear record (in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth,) the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one." If the disputed passage, therefore, be omitted as spurious, the whole passage will read, "For there are three that bear record, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one." The reasons which seem to me to prove that the passage included in brackets is spurious, and should not be regarded as a part of the inspired writings, are briefly the following:"

I will not quote what he states to support his conclusion that this passage is spurious, but leave this for your own consideration. The rest of his article is available on Bible Hub. There are many other Commentaries that consider this question.


What you have stated here is incorrect. Jesus did not say here that "he was God". They accused him that what he had stated in John 10:30 was equivalent to be claiming to be God.
John 10:30–38 (KJV): 30 I and my Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? 37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
You stopped short by quoting up to verse 33, but Jesus answered them in verses 34-37 and thus rejected their accusation. The full meaning of Jesus' answer needs to be considered step by step, but Jesus equates "I and my Father are one" with "I said, I am the Son of God". Jesus is not claiming to be God the Son, but the Son of God.

The first reference that I would like to add is 1 Corinthians 8:6 and this clearly teaches that there is One God the Father:
1 Corinthians 8:6 (KJV): But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

The second reference is one of the most quoted OT references in the NT. It reveals the present status of the One God, Yahweh, and David's and our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. This vision clearly supports the fact there is One God, the Father and that our Lord Jesus Christ is a human, now exalted, and he is the Son of God.
Psalm 110:1 (KJV): The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Kind regards
Trevor

Nothing to add to that and agreed. Due to the preponderance of evidence that Jesus isn't God, I have come to the conclusion that Jesus isn't God. Seems God, Jesus, and the disciples don't believe Jesus is God either.

I have seen too many of these kind of discussions to remember. I have seen all of the alleged proofs for the Trinity. Anything Jesus did or had the Bible also says Jesus' followers can do or have. What allegedly qualifies Jesus as God isn't unique to him. Furthermore, Jesus said his Father is the only true God. At times when Jesus was falsely accused of claiming to be God, to the contrary, Jesus would say he's a man or son of God.

If all that doesn't settle it, the Trinity doctrine isn't described or explained in the Bible. Quotes from ancient creeds and writings by Trinitarian adherents didn't make the cut to get into the canonized Bible and for good reason.

Jesus is not quoted as saying or doing anything in the Old Testament. He apparently didn't exist until he was born. He died a man, was resurrected as a man, was carried to heaven as a man, and Jesus is still a man even until the present day. The day is coming in which God will judge the world by a man. The truth is more interesting than all of the confusion that seems to abound and is actually liberating.

 

[Eleanor]

Nothing to add to that and agreed. Due to the preponderance of evidence that Jesus isn't God,

Then you disagree with the NT teaching in post #5 which demonstrates Jesus is God.

I have come to the conclusion that Jesus isn't God. Seems God, Jesus, and the disciples don't believe Jesus is God either.

I have seen too many of these kind of discussions to remember. I have seen all of the alleged proofs for the Trinity. Anything Jesus did or had the Bible also says Jesus' followers can do or have. What allegedly qualifies Jesus as God isn't unique to him. Furthermore, Jesus said his Father is the only true God. At times when Jesus was falsely accused of claiming to be God, to the contrary, Jesus would say he's a man or son of God.

If all that doesn't settle it, the Trinity doctrine isn't described or explained in the Bible. Quotes from ancient creeds and writings by Trinitarian adherents didn't make the cut to get into the canonized Bible and for good reason.

Jesus is not quoted as saying or doing anything in the Old Testament. He apparently didn't exist until he was born. He died a man, was resurrected as a man, was carried to heaven as a man, and Jesus is still a man even until the present day. The day is coming in which God will judge the world by a man. The truth is more interesting than all of the confusion that seems to abound and is actually liberating.

 

[Eleanor]

Nothing to add to that and agreed. Due to the preponderance of evidence that Jesus isn't God,

Then you disagree with the voluminous NT teaching in post #5 which presents Jesus as God.

 

[Runningman]

Then you disagree with the NT teaching in post #5 which demonstrates Jesus is God.

There’s too much to concisely address and I disagree with your presentation of scripture in post #5. Otherwise, I agree with what the Bible actually says; it doesn’t contain your talking points though.